Pierre Patrick Williams v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
71A05-1701-CR-23
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 13, 2017Background
- At ~1:15–1:30 a.m. on April 15, 2015 Officer Whitt stopped Williams for driving 80 mph in a 60 mph zone.
- On contact officers observed red/watery eyes and the odor of alcohol; Williams was initially asleep in his vehicle.
- Williams failed the HGN test and performed poorly on the walk-and-turn; he took a portable breath test and then refused chemical testing at the jail.
- Jail video (admitted without objection) showed Williams lying down, saying “I’m going to throw up,” and later saying “Dang, I got lit.”
- Williams was charged with OWI (misdemeanor) and OWI with a prior within 5 years (level 6 felony); after a bench trial the court found him guilty and sentenced him as a Level 6 felony offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain OWI conviction (Level 6 based on prior) | State: observations (red/watery eyes, odor), failed field sobriety tests, erratic behavior and admissions support intoxication | Williams: State failed to prove intoxication—no proof of significant alcohol consumption, no demonstrated impairment of attention/reflexes, balance, or speech; HGN allegedly not NHTSA-compliant; court improperly considered post-stop video statement | Affirmed: substantial evidence (observations, failed HGN, poor performance on tests, jail behavior/statement) was sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to find intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904 (Ind. 2005) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Davis v. State, 813 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. 2004) (do not reweigh evidence or assess credibility on appeal)
- Dozier v. State, 709 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (bench trial remarks vs. sufficiency focus)
- Nation v. State, 445 N.E.2d 565 (Ind. 1983) (bench trial findings not required)
- Woodson v. State, 966 N.E.2d 135 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (defining intoxication and permissible types of evidence)
- Fought v. State, 898 N.E.2d 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (examples of evidence supporting intoxication)
- Ballinger v. State, 717 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (proof of intoxication need not include BAC)
- Jellison v. State, 656 N.E.2d 532 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (same)
- Hall v. State, 367 N.E.2d 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977) (similar facts where observations and odor supported conviction)